MalaysianMalaysianMalaysianMalaysian JournalJournalJournalJournal OfOfOfOf ELTELTELTELT ResearchResearchResearchResearchISSN:ISSN:ISSN:ISSN: 1511-80021511-80021511-80021511-8002Vol. 7 (2), 2011
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish
ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
ADIADIADIADI AFZALAFZALAFZALAFZAL AHMADAHMADAHMADAHMAD
Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA Perlis
Malaysia
Abstract
Learning styles are a person’s natural, habitual and preferred ways of absorbing,
processing and retaining new information and skills. It has been hypothesized that, in a
language classroom, a match between the students’ preferred learning styles and their
teacher’s teaching style will lead to success in language learning whereas a mismatch will
lead to adverse effects such as failure and demotivation on the students’ part. This study
examined the learning style preferences of 252 Low English Proficiency (LEP) students
at a local tertiary institution. It also examined the role of gender in determining the
preferred learning styles of this particular group of students. Reid’s (1987) Perceptual
Learning Style Preferences Questionnaires (PLSPQ), a widely-used, reliable 30-item self
report inventory with a Likert-style response format, was used in this study to identify the
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
34
students’ preferred learning styles (Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic, Tactile, Group and/or
Individual). Descriptive statistics and an independent t-test were used to analyse the data.
Results indicated that all six styles were negative learning styles and that gender did not
seem to influence students’ learning style preferences. Implications of the findings for
teaching and learning are then discussed. The study concludes with the recommendation
that, when dealing with LEP students, every effort must be made to improve the students’
confidence and motivation in learning the language.
KEYWORDS:KEYWORDS:KEYWORDS:KEYWORDS: LearningLearningLearningLearning style,style,style,style, LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish Proficiency,Proficiency,Proficiency,Proficiency, EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish language,language,language,language, teaching,teaching,teaching,teaching,
learninglearninglearninglearning
IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction
It has been observed that many students are not able to become proficient in the English
language regardless of the number of hours of instruction that they have received. Even
worse, not only are they not able to become proficient in the language, they also become
demotivated to learn the language, and exhibit negative behaviours such as not paying
attention in class or skipping English classes. Many studies have been conducted to
discover the factors which contribute to second language (L2) learners’ success and also
failure in learning English. Of particular interest is the concept of individual learner
differences which includes, among many possible variables, the language learning styles
of the students.
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
35
Learning theorists generally agree that curriculum and instructional strategies should be
adapted to acommodate students’ individual differences (Burrows-Horton & Oakland,
1997). If serious mismatches occur between the learning styles of the students and the
teaching styles of the instructors, unfortunate consequences, such as students getting
bored and becoming inattentive in the classroom, performing rather poorly on tests, and
becoming discouraged, will result (Felder & Silverman, 1988; Godleski, 1984; Oxford,
Ehrman & Lavine, 1991).
In terms of learning English, a number of researchers propose that a mismatch between
students’ preferred learning styles and instructors’ preferred teaching styles have bad
effects on students’ learning and attitudes in the class and to English in general (Cortazzi,
1990; Felder & Henriques, 1995; Jones, 1997; Oxford, Hollaway &Horton-Murillo, 1992;
Stebbins, 1995; Reid, 1987). A match between students’ preferred learning styles and the
instructors’ preferred teaching styles, on the other hand, would lead to an increase in
motivation and learning as shown in studies by Griggs and Dunn (1984), Smith and
Renzulli (1984) and Wallace and Oxford (1992).
The term “learning style” has been defined in various ways. This is because, different
researchers have their own understanding of what constitutes learning styles (Zou, 2006).
Oxford, Hollaway and Horton-Murillo (1992), for example, define learning styles as the
general approaches (as opposed to specific strategies) that students resort to in learning a
new subject. Honigsfeld and Dunn (2006) define it as a biological and developmental set
of personal characteristics that make the same instruction effective for some learners and
ineffective for others. Peacock (2001) defines it as students’ preferred mode of learning.
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
36
Reid (1995), meanwhile, defines language learning style as the natural, habitual and
preferred way or ways of absorbing, processing and retaining new information and skills.
For the purpose of this study, Reid’s definition of learning style and her classification of
learning styles into six types,Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Tactile, Group, and
Individual, will be used as they are the most widely used and accepted definition and
categorization of learning styles (Peacock, 2001). In fact, Peacock acknowledges that
Reid’s work has aroused a great deal of interest in the concept of learning style since it
was published in 1987.
Knowing students’ learning styles is important and beneficial to teachers as it will allow
them to tailor their way of teaching so as to accommodate the learning style preferences
of their students (Hinton, 1992). Oxford (2003) regards learning styles and strategies as
being among the main factors that help determine how and how well the students learn a
second or foreign language, and indeed different students will tend to favour different
learning styles. For example, in her 1987 study, Reid reports that Chinese university
students studying in the United States of America (USA) favoured Kinesthetic and
Tactile learning styles while disfavouring the Group style. In a similar vein, Melton
(1990) found that Chinese university students in the Peoples’ Republic of China preferred
Kinesthetic, Tactile and Individual styles, and disfavoured Group style. Jones (1997)
finds that Chinese university students in Taiwan also preferred Kinesthetic and Tactile
styles but disfavoured Individual styles. Chinese university students in Singapore,
meanwhile, similarly favoured Kinesthetic and Tactile styles but did not disfavour any
style.
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
37
In relation to Malay students, Reid (1987) reports that the Malay students studying in
universities in the USA indicated Kinesthetic and Tactile learning styles as their major
(most preferred) learning style preferences. The Malay students in her study also
indicated that the remaining four learning styles were minor (the second most preferred)
learning styles to them. In terms of Malay students in a Malaysian tertiary institution,
Sharifah Azizah and Wan Zalina (1995) discoveredthat the Malay students favoured an
Individual learning style and had five negative learning (the least preferred)style
preferences. A later study by Syaharom (1999) reveals different findings in which Malay
students apparently favour the Group learning style and have three negative learning style
preferences.
As for secondary school students in Malaysia, Hariharan and Ismail (2003) found that
form four students in Kedah did not have any major learning style, but favoured two
minor learning styles (Kinesthetic and Group), and had four negative learning styles.
Their study also found evidence that gender differences seem to influence the learning
style preferences of the students. No published studies regarding Malaysian primary
school students’ learning style preferences have been found thus far.
Peacock (2001) proposes that more reseach concerning learning style preferences should
be conducted as the findings can be used to improve teaching methodology, the
development of course syllabi and materials, learner training, and teachers’ professional
development. He also proposes that investigations concerning the links between styles
and proficiency be carried out. Peacock (2001)’s recommendation is also echoed by
Thomas, Cox and Kojima (2000) who suggest that further research be carried out to
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
38
investigate the relationship between learning style and performance so that the link
between the two is made clearer. Apart from that, studies should also be carried out to
examine whether gender has any influence on students’ preferred learning styles.
Based on the recommendations made by the researchers, the current study attempts to fill
in the research gap by investigating the learning style preferences of Low English
Proficiency (LEP) students, and whether gender has any influence on students’ learning
style preferences.
Specifically, the study sought answers to the following questions:
1. What are the learning style preferences of the LEP students?
2. Do learning style preferences differ according to gender?
MethodologyMethodologyMethodologyMethodology
Two hundred and fifty two students who acheived the two lowest bands in the Malaysian
University English Test (MUET)examination took part in the study. The MUET
Handbook by the Malaysian Examinations Council (1999) describes Band 1 students as
extremely limited users, and Band 2 students as limited users of the language. The
handbook describes the students as having a poor command and a poor understanding of
the language and as being hardly able to function in the language. Out of the maximum
300 possible aggregate scores, these students tend to score within the range of zero to 139.
The students came from various degree programmes. The majority of the students were
Malays with 44 males(17.5%) and the rest females(82.5%).
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
39
The instrument used in this study was Reid’s (1987) Perceptual Learning Style
Preferences Questionnaire (PLSPQ), a 30-item self-reporting questionnaire which seeks
to idenfity students’ preferred learning styles as to whether they are Visual, Auditory,
Kinesthetic, Tactile, Group and/or Individual learners. PLSPQ also seeks to identify
students’ major (the most preferred way of learning), minor (the second most preferred
way of learning) and negative (the least preferred way of learning) learning styles. The
validation of the questionnaire was done by the split half method. Correlation analysis of
an original set of 60 statements which has 10 statements for each learning style
determined which five statements should remain to identify the respondents’ learning
style.
PLSPQ was chosen because the findings generated through the use of this particular
instrument make sense to language teachers as they are very practical in nature (Zou,
2006) and because it has been used in many learning styles’ studies (Peacock, 2001). In
terms of the reliability of the instrument, a study by Tabanlioglu (2003) reported a
Cronbach Alpha of .82 for the questionnaire.
In order to ensure that the respondents would not face any difficulty understanding the
items in the questionnaire, a Malay translation for each of the statement was incorporated
into the questionnaire. The translation was taken from Hariharan and Ismail’s (2003)
study in which they used PLSPQ to investigate the learning style preferences of
secondary school students in Kedah, Malaysia
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
40
A pilot test was conducted with 30 MUET Band 1 and 2 students prior to the actual
administration of the instrument to the respondents. Students were asked to rate each of
the statements as it applies to their study of the English language using a 5-point scale:
strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5).The
pilot test was carried out to ensure the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; to examine
the reliability of the questionnaire, and to check the amount of time required by the
respondents to complete the questionnaire. The purpose of the study and the pilot test was
made known to the students. It was noted that it took approximately 20 minutes for the
students to complete the questionnaire. The students also reported that they did not face
any problem in understanding the items in the questionnaire. The Cronbach Alpha of the
PLSPQ for the pilot study was 0.774.
For the actual study, the 252 respondents were gathered in one of the lecture halls during
lunch hour with the permission of the course coordinator. A brief explanation was given
to the participants regarding the procedures and they were assured that their responses
were strictly confidential and that their anonymity would be maintained. The students
were encouraged to ask for clarification if they faced any difficulty in understanding the
instructions, items and statements in the questionnaire. They were also informed that they
did not have to participate in the study if they did not wish to do so. Once the participants
indicated that they understood what they were required to do, the questionnaire was
distributed and the students were given time to read and respond to the items in the
questionnaire. Once they had completed the questionnaire, the questionnaires were
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
41
returned to the researcher. Only the researcher was present with the respondents in the
lecture hall.
ResultsResultsResultsResults andandandand discussiondiscussiondiscussiondiscussion
The data collected were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 12.0. In the actual study in which 252 students were involved, the Cronbach
Alpha for the PLSPQ was 0.774. Even though the value was lower compared to the value
reported for the pilot study (r = 0.852), it is still acceptable. According to Nunally (cited
in Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran, 2001), an alpha coefficient of 0.6 and above is still
acceptable. In other words, the PLSPQ is still a reliable instrument.
To identify the students’ learning style preferences, the mean score was computed and
each learning style was assigned as major, minor or negative learning style as suggested
and used by Reid (1987) and Peacock (2001). A mean score of 13.5 and above indicates
that the learning style is a major learning style for the students. A mean score of 11.5 to
13.49 indicates that the learning style is a minor learning style for the students. And a
mean of 11.49 or less indicates that the learning style is a negative learning style for the
students. The results are shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1: Learning style preference mean scores and standard deviations (SD)
Learning Style
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
42
Scores Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Tactile Group Individual
Mean scores 3.5460 3.9563 4.0817 3.9357 3.9643 2.9603
SD .57152 .43967 .46467 .49330 .50479 .78126
Note: Means 13.5 and above = major learning style preference
Means 11.5 – 13.49 = minor learning style preference
Means 11.49 or less = negative learning style preference
Table 2: Learning style mean and type
Style Mean Type
Visual 3.5460 Negative
Auditory 3.9563 Negative
Kinesthetic 4.0817 Negative
Tactile 3.9357 Negative
Group 3.9643 Negative
Individual 2.9603 Negative
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
43
As a whole, the mean scores show that the students do not have any major or even minor
learning style preference. All of the learning styles are negative learning style preferences
with the individual learning style considered the least preferred style (among all the
negative learning style preferences).The findings of this study differ from the findings
concerning Malay respondents reported in Reid’s (1987) study (n = 113). Her findings
show that the Malay respondents indicated Kinesthetic and Tactile as their major learning
style and the remaining four as their minor learning styles. None of the learning styles
was indicated as a negative learning style. Reid’s findings concerning Malay students’
learning style preferences seem to suggest that the respondents will not have much
difficulty in learning the English language because, since all the learning styles are
favourable to them, they will be able to accommodate the teacher’s teaching style without
much difficulty unlike the respondents in the present study who indicated that all learning
styles are negative learning styles to them.
The difference in terms of the result could be attributed to the fact that the Malay students
in Reid’s (1987) study are ESL students who were studying in universities in the United
States. Her repondents were in an environment where English was being used
extensively and that their understanding and mastery of the language was crucial for their
studies as well as for their day-to-day use. Since achieving a certain level of English as
indicated by a TOEFL score is a requirement for entering universities in the United States,
it can be deduced that the Malay respondents in Reid’s study were students who are
already very proficient in the language. Such students tend to have a favourable attitude
towards the English language and the native speaker culture (Brown, 2000). Conversely,
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
44
students who are not proficient in the language tend to have an unfavourable attitude
towards English language and the native speaker culture.
In terms of the respondents not rating any of the learning style as their major learning
style, the findings of this study concur with Hariharan and Ismail’s (2003) findings in
which there are no major learning style preferences among the form four Malay students
in secondary schools in Kedah. Their respondents, however, selected Kinesthetic and
Group learning styles as their minor learning style preferences unlike the respondents of
the current study who do not indicate any ofthe learning style as their minor learning
style. The Malay respondents in their study also regarded the four remaining learning
styles as negative learning styles, which is similar to the outcome of this study.
A rather worrying hypothetical deduction can be made from the findings of Hariharan
and Ismail’s (2003) study and the present study. Assuming that no positive or successful
intervention is carried out, the students in a secondary school who have already indicated
that they have four negative learning styles may graduate to having six negative learning
styles by the time they enter a tertiary institution. Since learning style preference is
considered one of the main factors that help determine how and how well a student learns
a second or foreign language (Oxford, 2003), and a match between the students’
preferred learning style and their teacher’s teaching style would lead to understanding
and learning on the students’ part (Reid, 1987), it is somewhat discomforting to discover
that among LEP students, all learning styles are considered negative learning styles. This
is because this suggests that no matter what the teacher does in the classroom, or no
matter what teaching style the teacher employs in teaching the LEP students, the students
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
45
would not be able to learn as effectively as they should. This is because, since all the
learning styles are rated as negative learning styles, it could be postulated that no ideal
match can ever occur between the teacher’s teaching style and the students’ learning style.
According to Fauziah and Nita (2002), some of the factors which contribute to low
English proficiency among Malaysian students are a negative attitude towards the
English language and a lack of confidence and motivation to learn the language. Brown
(2000) points out that attitudes are cognitive and affective, and that attitudes are related to
thoughts as well as to feelings and emotions. Attitudes govern how one approaches
learning. Because attitude can be modified by experience (Elyidrim & Ashton, 2006),
perhaps, teachers of LEP students should focus on motivating the students to enjoy
learning the language and to focus on creating a positive experience in learning the
language to the students. After the students have become more positive, confident and
motivated to learn the language, only then can effective interventions related to learning
styles, such as the ones suggested by Thomas, Cox and Kojima (2000), Rochford (2003)
and Honigsfeld and Dunn (2006) in their respective studies, be implemented to ensure
continuous success in terms of learning the language on the part of the students.
Next, to determine whether there is any significant difference between the learning style
preferences of male and female students, a t-test for independent samples was used. The
samples are referred to as independent samples because members of one sample (male)
are not related to members of the other sample (female) in any sytematic way other than
they were selected from the same population (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh & Sorensen, 2006).
Table 3 shows the result of the t-test.
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
46
Table 3: t-test result on gender
LS N Std df t Sig. (2-tailed)
Visual M=44
F=208
3.445
3.567
.487
.586
250 -1.287 .199
Auditory M=44
F=208
3.927
3.962
.537
.417
250 -.482 .630
Kinesthetic M=44
F=208
4.181
4.060
.456
.464
250 1.577 .116
Tactile M=44
F=208
4.004
3.921
.559
.478
250 1.019 .309
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
47
Group M=44
F=208
4.013
3.953
.523
.501
250 .713 .476
Individual M=44
F=208
3.000
2.951
.766
.785
250 .370 .712
p< 0.5
As can be seen from the table, the female students obtained a higher mean for Visual and
Auditory learning styles compared to the male students. Hence, the female students
appear to be more Visual and Auditory than the male students. The male students, on the
other hand, obtained a higher mean for Kinesthetic, Tactile, Group and Individual
learning styles compared to the female students. This shows that the male students are
more Kinesthetic, Tactile, Group and Individual than the female students. The t-test
further shows that the difference between the means is not significant; for example, t(250)
= -1.287, p > 0.5 for the Visual learning style. This can be interpreted to mean that
students’ gender does not seem to influence the students’ choice of learning styles.
The findings concur with the findings of the study carried out by Thomas, Cox and
Kojima (2000). In their study, they found that there is no significant difference between
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
48
learning style preference and gender among Japanese college students.The findings of
this particular study, however, differ from the ones found in Reid (1987) and Hariharan
and Ismail (2003) in which there is a significant difference in terms of gender and
learning style preference. Oxford (cited in Thomas, Cox &Kojima, 2000) also suggests
that women are more likely to be less tactile, less kinesthetic and more auditory than men.
There are several plausible explanations as to why there is no significant difference
between male and female respondents in this study. Firstly, the number of male
respondents for this study is very small (n = 44). Secondly, perhaps, due to the students
belonging in the same category of students (LEP), regardless of gender, they all share the
same negative preference for all the learning styles.A significant finding from Hariharan
and Ismail’s (2003) study is that the lower the achievement of a student, the more number
of negative learning style preference the students tend to have. Since the respondents of
this study are all LEP students, perhaps it should not come as a surprise that all of the
respondents, regardless of gender, indicated that all learning styles are negative learning
styles to them. An almost similar observation was made by Honigsfeld and Dunn (2006)
in which they state that high achieving college students tend to have significantly
different learning styles from low-achieving college students.
Another possible reason as to why there is no significant difference between the learning
style and gender of the respondents for this study is perhaps due to the students’ similar
background. Among them are: almost all of them are Malay students who have
undergone 11 years of instruction in Malaysian schools; they learn English as a Second
Language; and they are in an environment in which almost all day-to-day activities can
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
49
be accomplished in their first language which is Malay. They are also living in a country
where the education system is very examination-oriented (Lewey, 1977, as cited in
Fauziah & Nita, 2002). In other words, the students are living in an exam-oriented culture
in which studying and learning something is done for the sake of obtaining high scores in
examinations. Fauziah and Nita (2002), in fact, note that Malaysian classroom teachers
tend to conduct examination-oriented lessons. Due to all these similarities in experience,
perhaps, it can be deduced that all the LEP students regardless of whether they are male
or female have been subjected to the same kind of instruction at school and may even
have experienced the same trials and tribulations in learning the language, which have
shaped their present feelings about learning the language; and which is then translated
into a negative learning style preference for all six types of learning styles.
Finally, the reason as to why there is no significant difference in terms of learning style
preferences and the respondents’ gender might be attributed to culture. According to
Oxford, Holloway and Horton-Murillo (1992), culture plays a significant part in
influencing learning styles which are unconsciously adopted by the participants of that
culture. In other words, students from a Chinese culture might have different learning
style preferences from students from a Malay or Indian background. However, due to the
uniqueness of the findings of this study in which all learning styles are indicated as
negative learning styles, it is felt that the definition of “culture” can be expanded from its
traditional use of signaling ethnicity to also incorporating subcultures such as the
students’ own classroom culture, the teaching and learning culture which the students are
subjected to, and even the students as LEP students’ culture. In short, due to the fact that
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
50
both the male and female students belong to the same “LEP students” culture, they both
share similar traits and preferences, and that is the reason as to why there is no significant
difference between learning style preference and gender.
ImplicationsImplicationsImplicationsImplications forforforfor teachingteachingteachingteaching andandandand learninglearninglearninglearning
Some of the findings of this study such as the ones related to the first research question
were not anticipated by the researcher. It seems that the LEP students did consider any of
the learning style to be their major or even their minor learning style. All six styles were
indicated as negative learning styles. Learning style preferences of the LEP students also
do not differ according to gender. As was discussed in the previous section, it is felt that
the students’ negative attitude and lack of motivationtoward learning the language were
the factors which contributed to the unexpected findings of this study. This, in turn, has
certain implications for the teaching and learning of English in the language classroom.
Firstly, when dealing with LEP students, the instructor needs to be aware of the students’
background and motivational needs. This is because, due to their own unique experience
in learning the language, some of the students may have grown to believe that they will
never succeed in learning the language, and therefore, no longer feel the need or the
inclination to put in any effort in learning the language. The instructor must be able to
motivate the students to believe in themselves again and must be encouraging on an on-
going basis in order to cater to the learners’ affective needs.
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
51
Secondly, the instructor needs to be able to come up with interesting or engaging lessons
which are successful in capturing the LEP students’ interest in learning the language.
Perhaps, it would be wise for the instructor to present the lessons in “bite-size” pieces so
as not to overwhelm the LEP students. By doing so, the students would have a better
chance at understanding the lesson and mastering the concept that is being taught by the
instructor. The feeling of accomplishment and success that the students feel will make
them more confident in their ability to learn the language. In the process, they might also
develop an interest in learning the language.
Once the students have sufficiently developed prolonged interest and motivation in
learning the language, the instructor should expose the students to the concept of learning
styles. They should be taught how to assess their learning styles so that they know their
major, minor and negative learning styles as the knowledge will help them to cope with
their language learning better. At the very least, by knowing their learning style
preference, the students will become aware that they can take responsibility for their own
second language learning. Students should be taught to tolerate teaching styles which
they may have not looked on favourably as the instructor also needs to cater to the needs
of their peers who might have different preferred learning styles.
In order to develop the students’ repertoire of learning styles, the students should also be
guided to explore learning styles which they themselves have rated as a minor or negative
learning style. Doing so will help the students to experience the various learning styles,
understand their friends’ learning styles and, hopefully, develop their ability to
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
52
accommodate as many learning styles possible so that they will be able to handle the
various teaching styles of the instructor.
Finally, perhaps, it is time for language instructors (and the policy-makers) to look at the
pedagogical approaches being used in the teaching of the English language in regular
classrooms to see whether the approaches are still relevant and effective to the present
generation of students. According to Tapscott (2009) and Pletka (2007), the present
generation of students is known as the Net Generation.Tapscott (2009) describes the Net
Generation as a generation of students who grows up surrounded by digital media and
this has shaped the way the students perceive and interact with technology in every aspect
of their lives. Eight characteristics typical of these students are:
They prize freedom and freedom of choice. They want to customize things, make
them their own. They’re natural collaborators, who enjoy a conversation, not a
lecture. They’ll scrutinize you and your organization. They insist on integrity.
They want to have fun, even at work and at school. Speed is normal. Innovation is
part of life. (Tapscott, 2009, p. 6)
Pletka (2007) explains that Net Generation students dislike the traditional classroom
teaching and learning method because they have grown up in an environment which is
“information and communication rich, team-based, achievement-oriented, visually based,
and instantly responsive” (p. 13). Because of this, students belonging to this generation
have different expectations when it comes to how lessons are conducted in the classroom.
Therefore, to ensure that the students would be able to follow the English lesson
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
53
successfully, and to prevent them from becoming bored and unmotivated to learn English,
instructors should take the time to learn about the characteristics of this Net Generation
and design their lessons to address the specific needs of their learners. By doing so,
students may become more interested and engaged in following the language lessons.
ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion
Research on learning styles has demonstrated the importance of becoming aware of
students’ learning styles so that the instructors can make a more informed decision on the
kind of teaching approach to be used in delivering lessons to the students. A match
between the instructors’ teaching style and the students’ learning style has been shown to
improve students’ learning and motivation whereas a mismatch tends to have a dire
outcome.
The findings of this study, unfortunately, show that none of the six learning styles are
favoured by the LEP students. In fact, all six learning styles are indicated as negative
learning styles by the students. This also does not seem to be influenced by gender. Since
the students do not indicate any of the learning styles as their major or minor learning
style, instructors donot have the necessary information to choose the best teaching style,
and this could create problems as learning style theory postulates that a match between
the instructor’s teaching style and the learners’ learning styles is important and desirable
for effective learning to take place. Theunexpected findings appear to be due to the
students’ lack of interest and motivation in learning English.Thus,instructors must take
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
54
appropriate steps to address the students’ motivational needs. The instructor also must
design his or her lessons to cater to the interests of the students. Once these two
conditions have been fulfilled, only then would the instructor be able to assess the
students’ preferred learning styles.
Indeed, language learning is a complex process and other factors such as the students’
own language learning aptitude, parental involvement, pedagogical approaches and
classroom dynamics may also influence the success of the students in learning a second
language. As such, Gregorcs (1979, as cited in Reid, 1987) cautions that learning style
preferences of the learners cannot become the sole factor for designing instruction. In
spite of these constraints, however, learning styles have their own merits and benefits if
they are introduced in the classroom as they can, at least, make the students aware that
they can take part in managing their language learning process.
Future research projects to assess the learning style preferences of LEP students in other
tertiary institutions should be carried out to see whether a generalization on LEP
students’ learning style preferences can be made. In addition, research projects involving
primary school students should also be carried out due to the dearth of information
regarding learning style preferences of primary school students in Malaysia. The
translation of PLSPQ from English to Malay for all 30 statements could also be refined to
elicit a more accurate response from the respondent. Apart from that, the relationship
between learning style and learning strategies could also be an area of investigation as
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
55
both are important in helping students take control of their own language learning.
Finally, taking into consideration that the present generation of students, are different
from the previous generations, perhaps, there is a need to redefine learning styles and to
come up with a new and relevant instrument to identify the learning styles of the students
in this new technologically-driven era.
ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in
education, 7th edition. California: Thomson Wadsworth.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Burrows-Horton, C., & Oakland, T. (1997). Temperament-based learning styles as
moderators of academic achievement. Adolescence, 32 (125), 131-142.
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research:
Qualitative and quantitative methods. Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom. In
B. Harrison, Culture and the language classroom (pp. 54-65). London: Modern
English Publication.
Elyidrim, S.,& Ashton, S. (2006). Creating positive attitudes towards English as a
Foreign Language. English Teaching Forum, 4, 2-21.
Fauziah Hassan & Nita Fauzee Selamat (2002). Why aren’t students proficient in ESL:
The teachers’ perspective. The English Teacher, 18. Retrieved on December 1,
2007 from http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2002/wp10.htm
Felder, R. M, & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and
second language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28 (1), 21-31.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
56
education. Engineering Education, 78, 674-681.
Godleski, E. S. (1984). Learning style compatibility of engineering students and faculty.
Proceedings, Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. ASEE/IEEE,
Philadephia, 362.
Griggs, S. A., & Dunn, R. S. (1984). Selected case studies of the learning style
preferences of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28 (3), 115-119.
Hariharan N. Krishnasamy & Ismail Ibrahim (2003). Learning style preferences of
Kedah secondary school students. UUM. Unpublished research report.
Hinton, S. (1992). The learning style preference of students in graduate school. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association, Knoxville, November 1992.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dunn, R. (2006). Learning-style characteristics of adult learners. The
Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Winter 2006. Retrieved November, 10, 2007, from
Academic Search Premiere database.
Jones, N. B. (1997). Applying learning styles research to improve writing instruction.
Paper presented at RELC Seminar on Learners and Language Learning, Singapore,
April 1997.
Melton, C. D. (1990). Bridging the cultural gap: A study of Chinese students’ learning
style preferences. RELC Journal, 21 (1), 29-54.
Malaysian Examinations Council (1999). Malaysian University English Test. Batu
Caves: Percetakan Warni
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Learning
Styles & Strategies/Oxford, GALA 2003. Retrieved on October 1, 2007 from
http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf
Oxford, R. L., Hollaway, M. E., &Horton-Murillo, D. (1992). Language learning styles:
Research and practical considerations for teaching in the multicultural tertiary
ESL/EFL classroom. System, 20 (4), 439-445.
Oxford, R., Ehrman, M., & Lavine, R. (1991). Style wars: Teacher-student style
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
57
conflicts in the language classroom. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Challenges in the 1990’s
for College Foreign Language Programs. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 1-20.
Pletka, B. (2007). Educating the Net Generation: How to engage students in the 21st
century.
Santa Monica: Santa Monica Press.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly,
21 (1), 87-111.
Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (Ed.). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Rochford, R. A. (2003). Assessing learning styles to improve the quality of performance
of community college students in developmental writing programs: A pilot study.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 665-677.
Sharifah Azizah Syed Sahil & Wan Zalina Wan Din (1995). Students’ preferential
learning styles. UUM. Unpublished research report.
Smith, L. H., & Renzulli, J. S. (1984). Learning style preferences: A practical approach
for classroom teachers. Theory into practice, 23, 44-50.
Stebbins, C. (1995). Cultural-specific perceptual preferences of post-secondary students
of English as a second language. In J. M. Reid, Learning styles in the ESL/EFL
classroom (pp. 109-117). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Syaharom Abdullah (1999). The effect of learning style preferences on performance in
learning which utilizes print-based open learning materials. UUM. Unpublished
research report.
Tabanlioglu,S. (2003). The relationship between learning styles and language
learning strategies of pre-intermediate EAP students. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Middle East Technical University.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Net Generation is changing your world.
New
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
58
York: McGraw Hill.
Thomas, H., Cox, R., &Kojima, T. (2000). Relating preferred learning style to student
achievement.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to
speakers of Other Languages, Vancouver, March 2000.
Wallace, B., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). Disparity in learning styles and teaching styles in
the ESL classroom: Does this mean war?. AMTESOL Journal, 1, 45-68.
Zou, L. (2006). Teaching in the light of learning styles. Sino-US English Teaching, 3 (7),
52-57.
APPENDIXAPPENDIXAPPENDIXAPPENDIX AAAA
PLSPQPLSPQPLSPQPLSPQ
Arahan: Baca setiap pernyataan di bawah dengan teliti. Bulatkan angka yang dirasai
paling tepat menerangkan perasaan anda berhubung dengan pernyataan tersebut.
Instruction: Read each statement carefully and circle the number which best agrees with
how you feel about the statement.
Pernyataan
(Statement)
Sangatsetuju
(Stronglyagree)
Setuju
(Agree)
TidakPasti
(NotSure)
TidakSetuju
(Disagree)
SangatTidakSetuju
(Stronglydisagree)
1. Apabila guru memberitahu sayaarahan, saya lebih memahaminya.(When the teacher gives meinstructions, I understand better).
5 4 3 2 1
2. Saya lebih suka belajar denganmembuat sesuatu di dalam kelas. (Iprefer to learn by doing somethingin class).
5 4 3 2 1
3. Pencapaian kerja saya lebih apabila
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
59
saya bekerja dengan orang lain. (Iget more work done when I workwith others).
5 4 3 2 1
4. Saya belajar lebih banyak apabilasaya belajar di dalam kumpulan. (Ilearn more when I study in agroup).
5 4 3 2 1
5. Di dalam kelas, pembelajaran sayaterbaik apabila saya bekerja denganpelajar lain. (In class, I learn bestwhen I work with others).
5 4 3 2 1
6. Saya belajar lebih baik denganmembaca apa yang guru tulis diatas papan hitam. (I learn better byreading what the teacher writes onthe chalk board).
5 4 3 2 1
7. Apabila seseorang memberitahusaya bagaimana membuat sesuatudi dalam kelas, sayamempelajarinya dengan lebih baik.(When someone tells me how to dosomething in class, I learn better).
5 4 3 2 1
8. Apabila saya membuat sesuatu didalam kelas, saya belajar denganlebih baik. (When I do things inclass, I learn better).
5 4 3 2 1
9. Saya lebih mengingati perkara-perkara yang saya telah dengar didalam kelas berbanding dengan apayang saya telah baca. (I rememberthings I have heard in class betterthan things I have read).
5 4 3 2 1
10. Apabila saya membaca arahan,saya lebih mengingatinya. (When Iread instructions, I remember thembetter).
5 4 3 2 1
11. Saya belajar lebih apabila dapatmembuat sesuatu model. (I learn 5 4 3 2 1
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
60
more when I make a model ofsomething).
12. Saya lebih memahami apabilamembaca arahan yang diberikan. (Iunderstand better when I readinstructions).
5 4 3 2 1
13. Saya lebih mengingati sesuatuapabila saya belajar bersendirian.(When I study alone, I rememberthings better).
5 4 3 2 1
14. Saya belajar lebih apabila sayamembuat sesuatu untuk projekkelas. (I learn more when I makesomething for a class project).
5 4 3 2 1
15. Saya suka belajar di dalam kelasdengan melakukan eksperimen. (Ienjoy learning in class by doingexperiment).
5 4 3 2 1
16. Saya belajar dengan lebih baikapabila saya membuat lakaransemasa belajar. (I learn better whenI make drawings as I study).
5 4 3 2 1
17. Saya belajar dengan lebih baik didalam kelas apabila guru memberikuliah. (I learn better in class whenthe teacher gives a lecture).
5 4 3 2 1
18. Apabila saya membuat sesuatutugasan bersendirian, saya belajardengan lebih baik. (When I workalone, I learn better).
5 4 3 2 1
19. Saya lebih memahami sesuatu didalam kelas apabila sayamenyertai ”main peranan”. (Iunderstand things better in classwhen I participate in role-playing).
5 4 3 2 1
20. Saya belajar dengan lebih baik didalam kelas apabila sayamendengar seseorang. (I learnbetter in class, when I listen to
5 4 3 2 1
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
61
someone).
21. Saya suka membuat tugasanbersama dua atau tiga rakansekelas. (I enjoy working on anassignment with two or threeclassmates).
5 4 3 2 1
22. Apabila saya membina sesuatu,saya mengingati apa yang telahsaya pelajari dengan lebih baik.(When I build something, Iremember what I have learnedbetter).
5 4 3 2 1
23. Saya lebih suka belajar denganpelajar lain. (I prefer to study withothers).
5 4 3 2 1
24. Saya belajar lebih baik denganmembaca daripada mendengariseseorang. (I learn better by readingthan by listening to someone).
5 4 3 2 1
25. Saya suka membuat sesuatu untukprojek kelas. (I enjoy makingsomething for a class project).
5 4 3 2 1
26. Saya belajar dengan paling baik didalam kelas apabila menyertaiaktiviti berkaitan. (I learn best inclass when I participated in relatedactivities).
5 4 3 2 1
27. Di dalam kelas, saya bekerjadengan lebih baik apabila berkerjasendirian. (In class, I work betterwhen I work alone).
5 4 3 2 1
28. Saya lebih suka menyiapkan projeksecara bersendirian. (I preferworking on projects by myself).
5 4 3 2 1
29. Saya belajar lebih banyak denganmembaca buku teks daripadamendengar kuliah. (I learn more byreading textbooks than by listeningto lecturers).
5 4 3 2 1
LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage LearningLearningLearningLearning StyleStyleStyleStyle PreferencesPreferencesPreferencesPreferences ofofofof LowLowLowLow EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish ProficiencyProficiencyProficiencyProficiency (LEP)(LEP)(LEP)(LEP) StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents inininin aaaa TertiaryTertiaryTertiaryTertiary InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution
Ahmad, A. (2011). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 7(2), p. 33-62. www.melta.org.my
62
30. Saya lebih suka bekerjabersendirian. (I prefer to work bymyself).
5 4 3 2 1